Steve Firth wrote:
Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

The trouble with hydrogen is that it takes energy to extract it
from water or other compounds.

The trouble with hydrogen is that it is manufactured from
hydrocarbons, not by electrolysis of water. Thus using hydrogen as a
fuel actually increases CO2 emissions compared to burning those
hydrocarbons in the engine.

It's yet another con, expensive, impractical and achieves absolutely
**** all. I heard that London transport has wasted three million quid
on purchasing electric buses from Daimler-Chrysler than operate from
"hydrogen". That's hydrogen as in "methane", natural gas stored in
tanks in the roof of the bus which is then catalytically split to CO2
and H2 witht he CO2 being emittted to atmosphere. The lying *******s
then describe this as "zero emission".

The TfL press release says quite categorically "The fuel-cell system turns
the gas into electrical power and the only emission is water", but
http://www.fuel-cell-bus-club.com (which is referenced by TfL's press
release) says that the fuel cells "are fed with natural gas", and talks
about *reduced* emissions.

I've e-mailed TfL asking for clarification on this point, and asking
specifically whether CO2 is produced by the buses. I'll post any reply
here.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)s